The defense attorneys in these cases have hit upon a pretty functional justification recently with the “feared for his life” defense. Currently the law makes no distinction in the test for the use of deadly force in self-defense between sworn officers and soldiers and civilians. I’m not sure how that can be resolved except by precedent in a Supreme Court case. That means one of these police homicides has to make it all the way up to the Supreme Court and have the officer still be found guilty on the basis that their fear for their life was unreasonable given their training and position. A new legal test for self-defense for law enforcement would have to be included in the decision.
Except BLM was specifically founded to address the fact that police violence was disproportionately directed towards black people, the same way the NAACP was founded to address the fact that Jim Crow laws were specifically directed towards black people.
To respond to that with “all lives matter” is the equivalent of receiving news that the Nazis were systematically exterminating the Jews of Europe with “Well, there’s a war on, we’re all suffering. Yours doesn’t take priority.”*
*Note, the US and Soviet governments both did this.
That was a different time. People are becoming more peaceful and anti-violent in this day and age. If a bunch of people got together and decided to dump coffee into a harbor in order to prove a point, we would all think they were insane.
I don’t think that’s true, considering that the individual incidents of police shooting black people are what trigger these mass riots in the first place.
I can’t speak for the majority of people in these movements, but that’s never how I interpreted it. In my view, it’s not a case of “Your suffering doesn’t take priority”, but instead it’s more “Okay, that’s a serious issue and it is indeed high-up on the priority list, but mass-rioting and violence isn’t the answer, and you shouldn’t ignore everyone else as well.”
It seems to me that the name and their methods are the two primary issues. They want to create a movement that protests against police brutality and racism? That’s totally fine. But they could have picked a better name and been less violent about it. If they had protested peacefully from the beginning, their opposition would have had a much harder time finding bad things to say about them.
Only if they were doing it in protest of big corporations.
These mass riots that again and again demonstrate that “moderate” (and I say this as someone who identifies as personally conservative, not as someone who identifies as politically leftist) means “in favor of the status quo”.
It’s just like how the “moderates” on the slavery issue were far more perturbed by abolitionists demanding an immediate end to slavery than by slave owners wanting to continue slavery indefinitely. One meant they had to accept a great change to the status quo, the other didn’t.
So naturally we get the latter tacitly supported as “less extreme” simply because it isn’t an immediate disruption.
If the name had come up independently, then I’d agree, but it hasn’t. It’s come up as as a direct result, and voiced in direct opposition with BLM’s goals, often by people who have otherwise stated that they are in opposition for what BLM stands for.
I’ve never seen “all lives matter” as a slogan used as anything other than a silencing tactic, and while BLM activists, organisers and figureheads do bring awareness of other ethnic groups (including white people) being targeted by cops, I’ve yet to see the “all lives matter” crowd do anything except for try to silence others.
If a movement which makes people in power uncomfortable doesn’t have sufficient violence in it, measures will be taken to focus on, exaggerate or outright fabricate the violence required in an attempt to discredit that movement. As someone who lives in a city which riots every time we lose the Stanley Cup Finals, I’ve never seen a level of public outrage towards Canucks fans as I have against BLM, even though the Stanley Cup riots are usually more destructive, and for far more petty reasons.
I wouldn’t say “moderate” means “in favor of the status quo” when the US government is pretty much entirely ruled by the Republican Party, and there are large portions of the population that fervently support both left and right.
Often times saying you’re moderate just means you don’t want to be associated with some of the more extreme opinions and violence coming from both sides.
Except it’s not the same. First of all, we’re not talking about slavery. Secondly, the issue isn’t whether or not we should seek an immediate end to police shootings, the issue is how. Most moderates believe that violent ‘protests’ and calling all white people racist will ultimately do more harm than good.
Other moderates just want to be left out of the discussion entirely, neither approving nor disapproving of the status quo.
An attitude that is less than helpful to be certain. However as the article I linked previously illustrates it is not just Black lives the rotten apples among the militarised cops can snuff out with virtual impunity and no fear of (legal) repercussion. I mean they just killed a working-class white kid in the style of a death-squad execution Duterte would probably be proud of.
So this is an example of where seeking justice based on class (if he was a rich kid those cops would be in prison by now, particularly given that sickening and disgusting body cam footage and probably looking at a date with the needle that 'murican conservatives are so awfully fond of themselves) would also further the aims of BLM.
It is tragic that the epidemic of Black deaths was not enough to put a stop to this horrid culture, but even in my own country the police could bash fags with almost the same impunity and the country and politics only happened to get up in arms about it when a passing psychology student passed by too close, was janked off her bike and subsequently clubbed to death by our riot police and that was 1979.
It was that incident and not all of the previous incidents ,where the cops beat gay men or accused “criminals” without connections to death that finally prompted a thorough overhaul of police procedure and a reining in of the worst elements of established police “culture” and traditions. Including our highway patrol’s infamous hazing nights where they’d go bust up known gay hang-out, such as bars and the gay men in them.
If Daniel Shaver is the spark needed to provoke the same in America then it would be better if some of the BLM activists joined forces with other would-be police reformers, perhaps even Blue Lives Matter. Because the conduct of the rotten apples erodes police authority and prestige and sentiments such as your quoted “all cops are bastards” diminish the value of and possibly endanger all police lives too.
If the Atlantic is correct then the officers in the Shaver case had both body cams and tasers and it didn’t help one bit. You can add all the camera surveillance you want and give them all the non-lethal weapons they could possibly want but without changes to the entrenched culture and an overhaul of procedure those will largely remain symbolic measures.
You forget that modern America is the country that is willing to sacrifice children on the altar of the second amendment. With either of the current two major parties in the us waiting for them to offer legitimate and effective means of redress is likely to mean settling in for the very long-haul.
Well Paul Ryan, and the big cable companies sure aren’t.
Wha, at least over here officers certified to handle firearms are expected to be able to withstand “stronger pressures” then the average civilian. Still a bit vague and not always able to provide a satisfactory resolution for the victims or the police but at least the standards are supposed to be higher.
The exceptions tend to be if the police are faced with overwhelming firepower. More rare, but certainly not unheard of, here than in the US.
The problem is that this isn’t specifically a class based issue, There’s a certain “presumption of guilt” based on certain ethnicities in the US which leads to police getting more of a pass when they claim a particular victim made them “fear for their life”. A poor white kid getting shot by police gets a lot more outrage in the “respectable” parts of the public sphere than a poor black kid.
As some would point out, Dylann Roof murdered nine people, put his hands up, and got out without a scratch. Tamir Rice didn’t even have a chance to put his hands up before he was gunned down.
But it shouldn’t be the burden of the ordinary citizens in an economically and racially disadvantaged group to make the first steps towards reconciliation. That’s the job of the people who are theoretically not only accountable to the taxpayers, but also possess the literal power of life and death over those they police.
I have friends that are cops and the former cop they pretty much train be in constant fear. Literally it’s a similar mentality you would have on combat deployment.
At the same time, I’ve also seen BLM activists say things like “kill all cops” and “all white people are racist.” I think what it comes down to is that some BLM activists are good, and some are bad. It’s the bad ones that spoil the movement’s image as a whole, and it’s also the bad ones and All Lives/Blue Lives are trying to respond to.
Which I think reinforces part of my point. The violent protests and comments from some of the more extreme members of the group have only distracted from the movement as a whole. In the same way that many leftists are beginning to view the “Right” and the “Alt-Right” as the same thing.
Again, the idea behind the BLM movement was great. It just should have been implemented better.
Fair point, but why does that justify actual violence? When your enemy throws propaganda at you, you counter it by sharing the truth. There’s always going to be idiots who believe the propaganda, but in the current video age it’s much harder to fabricate these sort of things. Committing violence just makes it easier for your opponent to demonize you.
The thing is that sports-related riots have been occurring for decades now. There should be outrage towards them, but recent generations are growing increasingly apathetic to anything that can be considered old news. BLM is far more recent and far more political, and as a result it draws more attention. If these riots continue over the course of the next decade or two (hopefully not, and hopefully the causes for them will have stopped as well), I expect the outrage will have toned down significantly by then. The more these things happen the more desensitized people become to them.
I would, because if you want the status quo to be different, one has to do something. If a house is on fire, being “neutral” on if it burns down or not is more helpful to the fire than the firefighters.
We are talking about exactly the same kind of “but I don’t want to change anything”.
Most moderates are, as usual, more eager to condemn opposition to the system than the system, and they as usual will regard “stop calling people racist” to be a valid response to the system’s racism being blasted.
Spoken as someone who is white and (partially) Irish, as far as ethnicity/race/background. I could probably try harder to be less institutionally disadvantaged if I was a “Smith” (instead of having a very obviously Irish middle name and a marginally less obvious last name).
I mean, I don’t necessarily consider that a particular stretch considering that
1: If every encounter with a white person has ended with their racial bias getting in the way, empirical experience would say all white people were racist.
2: I believe everyone is racist to some extent, due to the biases that are unconsciously instilled into as as we grow and live as people.
I think that’s necessarily a matter of self-policing, which BLM hasn’t really been much inclined to do specifically because it’s supposed to be a grassroots movement. If the idea was to give vent to the frustrations of people who’ve been treated as second-class citizens since the time were were actually made citizens, then the organisation of the kind of structure which is supposed to make everyone fall in line isn’t going to be much help, especially since there will always be people angry enough to kick over newsstands so long as the underlying problem exists.
It doesn’t, and it hasn’t. BLM protests haven’t gotten particularly more violent over time. It’s the same routine of angry people kicking over garbage cans, the news filming them, and that making the six o’clock news, because “race riot downtown” sells good copy.
I’d imagine that WLM (White Lives Matter) was made in response, and as a method arguing against Black Lives Matter. (Given their actions at least: http://time.com/5001532/white-lives-matter-rally-murfreesboro/)
Can’t speak for how reputable the website is , But that along with other unsavoury groups, is probably where the rallying cry against the BLM movement is coming from…And where a lot of the bad apples / weed/ extremists etc are coming from.
Furthermore ALM doesn’t have the same discrimination, and flagrant tribalization found in both the WLM and the BLM. I believe Morgan Freeman said something about addressing injustice, but not promoting and constantly trying to separate people. We get rid of racism by not separating people into different groups based on the colour of their skin. By fixing educational inequitably, giving everyone a fair shot at success. It’s hard and there will be people in who drag their feet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3cGfrExozQ
Not that BLM is completely spotless, chanting for police officers deaths? “ATTACK EVERYTHING IN BLUE EXCEPT THE MAIL MAN” (African American Defense League), fallacious rioting, threats of violence against bystanders, destruction of businesses and property “the city of Baltimore suffered between $9 million to $20 million in damages after riots” and looting, and that’s without getting into the details surrounding George. S funding them to buy property on the cheap, or Russia’s funding to cause divides in the American public.
And I’m not saying the fear that caused BLM is not real, the number of deaths caused by gun violence, police ect in America says enough. But that doesn’t mean that trying to treat everyone equally is Racist, or an attempt at calling another group worthless.
It’s not: “I don’t care if it burns down or not.”
It’s: “I’d rather it not burn down, but I’m not going to dive in there and potentially get roasted alive.”
I think we’re both making far too many assumptions on what “most moderates” would do. Most of the moderates I know have primarily condemned the methods, not the movements themselves.
- But that’s a completely baseless assumption to make. Especially when there are plenty of white people who do support the BLM movement.
- And I would agree with that. But the problem with the “All white people are racist” line is the same as the “Black Lives matter.” It only focuses one race. There are many people who seem to think that only white people are capable of racism, and have outright said as much.
Yeah, I understand that. There’s always going to be people who take things too far, but influential figures within that community could at least make more effort to reign it in. And I’d say the same about any other communities with members that take things too far.
I think “angry people kicking over garbage cans” is an understatement - some of those riots have gotten much more intense than that.
And I’m not saying that they’ve gotten more violent, just that the violence should stop.
Anyways, I’ve enjoyed this debate, but it’s getting late and I need to sleep soon. So, good night everyone.
No, it isn’t.
People act based on their personal experiences. In most cases, we even have the gall to call it “wisdom”.
Personally, I’ve seen figureheads within BLM condemn violence and property damage, but considering the fact that they’re figureheads instead of leaders with any kind of binding authority, that really only reaches the people who weren’t planning on violence anyway.
Good night! Get back in time for the Patreon article on Ducal government to drop
ALM doesn’t have the same discrimination and such because it is nothing. All it exists to be is a way to silence Black Lives Matter and make supporters of BLM feel bad for ‘not thinking all lives matter’.
I’m not either. But ALM was made to shut down the conversation, that is all it is. Any argument that it isn’t made for that is blatantly wrong because that is 100% of its reason for existing. It was the ‘moderate’ voice in action supporting the status quo.
Those two statements don’t make sense, its putting one group above others (And saying that treating everyone with human decency is an attack on them.) when all lives should be treated equally, and given all the same rights, privileges and opportunities…
It’s that belief in inalienable rights endowed to all People, that makes the horrible stuff that some truly horrible police officers do in America so terrible. But instead, if one chooses to be a police officer their life is subsequently worthless. That appreciation for everyone deemed as an attack? Will there next be a hierarchy of privilege?
Edit: Didn’t see the last part of your message, and it is true that some would use that as an excuses to not change anything. But there are also some who are twisting the BLM message into the same thing that WLM or alt-Right is, using the chaos to hurt people, with the excuses that they don’t matter as much. For instance Evergreen State College.
I don’t know how you picked that out of
All Lives Matter, if it actually were an organization attempting to fix things, would be doing things like fighting ardently against police brutality. It isn’t. Because it isn’t an organization in any way. It’s just a slogan used to make BLM seem like they only care about black people, even though the end goal of BLM (the end of widespread police brutality) benefits everyone.
Your argument there tried to put words where there were none, by claiming that I said that police officer lives were worthless, and that one group should be put above others.
A small minority of those claiming to be part of BLM taking advantage of chaos to hurt people is nothing like ALM. ALM exists as an excuse to do nothing. That is why it was created, to shut down the conversation.
If I may add something for emphasis to @Lotus’s comments:
If All Lives Matter genuinely felt that all lives matter, they would look at what groups aren’t reliably treated with human decency, aren’t reliably treated equally, and are deprived of the rights, privileges, and opportunities that are claimed to be something extended to “all Americans”.
“We need to promote the well being of everyone.” as a response to BLM is a very polite and very slick way of denying that that not all groups are treated equally fairly.
I think I’m arguing for the sake of arguing at this point, which is really stupid.
Anyhow, my point was that BLM, though having the noble goal of ending police brutality in America, a serious issue due to rampant crime, availability of guns and lingering vestiges of the old south. Has acted in bad faith, while certainly being less terrible than the sickos that ran that lady over in Charlotte, the methods they have used have evolved towards needless violence (Spurred on by corp sickos like George soros.), and their message has had the catch cry Kill all cops , “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now! added to it” added to it.
Its has been twisted in much the same way (Though perhaps it was always twisted.) as the Alt-Right, or WLM or any number of groups. And that wanting to treat everyone fairly shouldn’t be seen as wrong.
After all ending the needless violence committed by dirty cops helps everyone.
Anyway this all started because I thought the idea of All Lives Mattering being seen as a way to deny other groups their chance to speak as wrong .
Or perhaps I’m just upset that a group that I thought supported everyone doesn’t…(Thought it was WLM that was the crazies.)
Anyway that ends my trip through never-land thanks for talking, I don’t think I explained what I meant very well. But no matter